4 ms·

> Nasa's announcement on Friday is part of a move towards full privatisation of the ISS. US President Donald Trump published a budget last year which called fo

> Nasa's announcement on Friday is part of a move towards full privatisation of the ISS. US President Donald Trump published a budget last year which called for the station to be defunded by the government by 2025. I had no idea that the ISS was going to be de-funded. Does that even make sense?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
dsfyu404ed 7y ago
I never heard this before and it doesn't pass the sniff test. Not giving NASA as much money as they and the public would like is one thing, every congress and administration since probably LBJ does that. Specifically "de-funding" one of their flagship projects would cause massive public backlash. Besides, congress writes the budget. Anything Trump "publishes" is just political posturing without much meaning. Therefore I suspect that this is just some out of context or misrepresented tidbit that worked its way in after the author googled around to figure out the recent history of privatization of space. Then again, I wouldn't at all be surprised if Trump published a wish list budget and literally forgot to put NASA on it. I'm betting reality is probably more nuanced than the one sentence the author distilled it down to.
- T-A 7y ago
  https://spacenews.com/nasa-budget-proposal-plans-of-nasa-funding-of-iss-seeks-commercial-transition/ https://spacenews.com/nasa-budget-proposal-plans-of-nasa-fun... https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/08/bringing-down-iss-plans-stations-demise-updated/ https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/08/bringing-down-iss-pl...
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  The ISS has had several defunding dates set and extended, by both Republican and Democratic administrations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station_program#End_of_Mission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station_pr...
inflatableDodo 7y ago
>"Plans to privatize the ISS made headlines earlier this year when NASA revealed The White House intended to pull the plug on federal finances in 2025. This isn't the first time privatization murmurs have surfaced for the space station, but a recent NASA audit suggests a conversion to private operation may not be feasible." >"According to NASA forecasts, there are two main options the ISS could take to stay afloat pending a lack of federal funding. The first proposition involves larger private sector investment, and the agency readily acknowledges it's already taken baby steps to increase commercialization." https://www.engadget.com/2018/07/31/nasa-expresses-doubts-over-the-privatization-of-the-iss/ https://www.engadget.com/2018/07/31/nasa-expresses-doubts-ov...
Robotbeat 7y ago
The ISS has a limited life due to thermal cycling and such. (One hot/cold cycle every 90 minutes). Think airliner cycles. The first part was launched in 1998. ISS was actually supposed to be deorbited in the 2015 timeframe under Bush II (to make funds available for the Constellation program), later extended to 2020 and then 2025. I think most expect ISS to stay in orbit until 2028 or maybe a little later, so some extension is likely to happen regardless of what Trump's policy is (same as how Obama extended ISS). 30 years is a really long time for safety-critical space hardware, and ISS absorbs an astronomical amount of funding. It's not hyperbole to say that the Trump Moon shot would have plenty of funding if ISS wasn't around. We're talking about an additional $4-5 billion per year.
- bluGill 7y ago
  How does Russia feel about this? They have modules too, and face similar issues.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    There were some nebulous plans to split off the Russian modules as a core for a new station. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_Piloted_Assembly_and_Experiment_Complex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_Piloted_Assembly_and_E... I'm extremely dubious of their ability to fund such an endeavour.
- chungleong 7y ago
  I remember being angry when Congress cancelled fundings for Superconducting Super Collider but kept those for Space Station Freedom. From a scientific discovery standpoint, the decision was utterly unjustifiable. I'm willing to accept the contention that space exploration is more than science--it's the fulfillment of Man's aspiration. But if the existence of the space station becomes an impediment to space exploration itself then what exactly is the point?
  - Robotbeat 7y ago
    I'm not sure I agree. Building ever-bigger colliders has pretty hardcore diminishing returns. ISS (what Space Station Freedom became) is also a platform with a whole bunch of scientific and now commercial applications, many of which were not even foreseen at the time. Additionally, CERN ended up building CERN, which basically accomplished the goals of SSC. I doubt anyone else would have taken up the mantle of ISS other than a few small modules. But I agree it's potentially problematic that ISS has become a budget drain on NASA. That's why it's good to look for alternative customers/uses of ISS other than being entirely paid for by NASA.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

dsfyu404ed 7y ago

I never heard this before and it doesn't pass the sniff test. Not giving NASA as much money as they and the public would like is one thing, every congress and administration since probably LBJ does that. Specifically "de-funding" one of their flagship projects would cause massive public backlash. Besides, congress writes the budget. Anything Trump "publishes" is just political posturing without much meaning. Therefore I suspect that this is just some out of context or misrepresented tidbit that worked its way in after the author googled around to figure out the recent history of privatization of space. Then again, I wouldn't at all be surprised if Trump published a wish list budget and literally forgot to put NASA on it. I'm betting reality is probably more nuanced than the one sentence the author distilled it down to.

T-A 7y ago
https://spacenews.com/nasa-budget-proposal-plans-of-nasa-funding-of-iss-seeks-commercial-transition/ https://spacenews.com/nasa-budget-proposal-plans-of-nasa-fun... https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/08/bringing-down-iss-plans-stations-demise-updated/ https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/08/bringing-down-iss-pl...
ceejayoz 7y ago
The ISS has had several defunding dates set and extended, by both Republican and Democratic administrations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station_program#End_of_Mission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station_pr...

inflatableDodo 7y ago

>"Plans to privatize the ISS made headlines earlier this year when NASA revealed The White House intended to pull the plug on federal finances in 2025. This isn't the first time privatization murmurs have surfaced for the space station, but a recent NASA audit suggests a conversion to private operation may not be feasible." >"According to NASA forecasts, there are two main options the ISS could take to stay afloat pending a lack of federal funding. The first proposition involves larger private sector investment, and the agency readily acknowledges it's already taken baby steps to increase commercialization." https://www.engadget.com/2018/07/31/nasa-expresses-doubts-over-the-privatization-of-the-iss/ https://www.engadget.com/2018/07/31/nasa-expresses-doubts-ov...

Robotbeat 7y ago

The ISS has a limited life due to thermal cycling and such. (One hot/cold cycle every 90 minutes). Think airliner cycles. The first part was launched in 1998. ISS was actually supposed to be deorbited in the 2015 timeframe under Bush II (to make funds available for the Constellation program), later extended to 2020 and then 2025. I think most expect ISS to stay in orbit until 2028 or maybe a little later, so some extension is likely to happen regardless of what Trump's policy is (same as how Obama extended ISS). 30 years is a really long time for safety-critical space hardware, and ISS absorbs an astronomical amount of funding. It's not hyperbole to say that the Trump Moon shot would have plenty of funding if ISS wasn't around. We're talking about an additional $4-5 billion per year.

bluGill 7y ago
How does Russia feel about this? They have modules too, and face similar issues.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  There were some nebulous plans to split off the Russian modules as a core for a new station. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_Piloted_Assembly_and_Experiment_Complex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_Piloted_Assembly_and_E... I'm extremely dubious of their ability to fund such an endeavour.
chungleong 7y ago
I remember being angry when Congress cancelled fundings for Superconducting Super Collider but kept those for Space Station Freedom. From a scientific discovery standpoint, the decision was utterly unjustifiable. I'm willing to accept the contention that space exploration is more than science--it's the fulfillment of Man's aspiration. But if the existence of the space station becomes an impediment to space exploration itself then what exactly is the point?
- Robotbeat 7y ago
  I'm not sure I agree. Building ever-bigger colliders has pretty hardcore diminishing returns. ISS (what Space Station Freedom became) is also a platform with a whole bunch of scientific and now commercial applications, many of which were not even foreseen at the time. Additionally, CERN ended up building CERN, which basically accomplished the goals of SSC. I doubt anyone else would have taken up the mantle of ISS other than a few small modules. But I agree it's potentially problematic that ISS has become a budget drain on NASA. That's why it's good to look for alternative customers/uses of ISS other than being entirely paid for by NASA.